(2020-11-10, 12:39 AM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: I think it is incoherent. A satisfying explanation of how it might work would go a long way toward disabusing me of that notion.
Neither of those -isms helps. Going with idealism doesn't suddenly help me understand how a free decision works.
~~ Paul
But I've yet to see you give an argument for this claim of free will being incoherenct. Maybe I missed it and you can paste it or link it in your next reply and I'll see if it's satisfactory.
A satisfying explanation for why free will is incoherent, as in impossible in every possible world, would go a long way toward helping people understand what a satisfying explanation for free will would look like for you.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(2020-11-10, 12:27 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: In desperate hope of this conversation not being a repeat of the 75 page thread and all prior Skeptiko free will discussion, here's William James on why "randomness" could just as easily mean "inner causation": I loved both quotes. However, you will agree, I'm sure, that there isn't a single word in there about how the "ultimate pluralism" actually becomes a choice.
~~ Paul
If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi
(2020-11-10, 12:48 AM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: I loved both quotes. However, you will agree, I'm sure, that there isn't a single word in there about how the "ultimate pluralism" actually becomes a choice.
~~ Paul
Well the point of the quotes is to show that randomness is an external attribution, and thus there can be events that are neither deterministic nor random.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(2020-11-10, 12:44 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: But I've yet to see you give an argument for this claim of free will being incoherenct. Maybe I missed it and you can paste it or link it in your next reply and I'll see if it's satisfactory.
A satisfying explanation for why free will is incoherent, as in impossible in every possible world, would go a long way toward helping people understand what a satisfying explanation for free will would look like for you.
Now you're just refusing to move on in the discussion. I have dropped my claim. It's gone.
But you can't possibly believe that simply dropping my claim suddenly enlightens me as to the method of making a free decision. By all means, introduce something other than determinism and true randomness. Heck, introduce two things. Choose any source of those things you like. Assume idealism or dualism. Reject physicalism. Postulate an immaterial universal mind and/or individual minds. The possibilities are endless.
And now can I get a description of how a free decision is made in that world?
~~ Paul
If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi
(2020-11-10, 12:43 AM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: If you can't explain how matter moves in an indeterministic nonrandom way, wouldn't you conclude there is a problem with the concept? So you must have an explanation. That's all I'm asking for.
I have multiple times said that I'm happy to drop the deterministic/randomness dichotomy. Consider it dropped.
Do you now have a description of a free decision?
~~ Paul
How can you drop the dichotomy when it is the very reason you're saying free will is incoherent?
I think it's pretty clear, going back the previous 75 page thread, that no matter the explanation we'll just circle back to the dichotomy.
And I don't see why someone has to explain how matter moves in an indeterministic [non-random] way? You haven't explained why things move in a deterministic or random way.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(This post was last modified: 2020-11-10, 12:58 AM by Sciborg_S_Patel.)
(2020-11-10, 12:52 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: Well the point of the quotes is to show that randomness is an external attribution, and thus there can be events that are neither deterministic nor random.
It does not in any way show that there are events other than deterministic and random ones. It merely asserts it.
But I'm okay with that. It just doesn't lead me to an understanding of making a free decision.
~~ Paul
If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi
(2020-11-10, 12:56 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: How can you drop the dichotomy when it is the very reason you're saying free will is incoherent?
I think it's pretty clear, going back the previous 75 page thread, that no matter the explanation we'll just circle back to the dichotomy.
And I don't see why someone has to explain how matter moves in an indeterministic way? You haven't explained why things move in a deterministic or random way. Are you now introducing some rule of argumentation where I'm not allowed to drop a requirement and go along with the proposed worldview?
I agreed pages ago that we cannot give an ultimate "why" answer to physical processes. But we can give very low-level descriptions of how things work that are stunningly accurate. All I'm asking for is a hand-waving description of how an indeterministic decision is made.
We are at the point here where more words are being spent pigeonholing me than are being spent trying to answer my question.
~~ Paul
If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi
(2020-11-10, 12:56 AM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: It does not in any way show that there are events other than deterministic and random ones. It merely asserts it.
But I'm okay with that. It just doesn't lead me to an understanding of making a free decision.
~~ Paul
His very point is that "randomness" just refers to events for which there are no external deterministic explanations, that it's an inner causal power that is actually at work.
There's 75 pages of people on this board alone trying to offer explanations for a free decision that would satisfy you. Seems clear that we don't know what you're looking for.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(2020-11-10, 01:03 AM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: Are you now introducing some rule of argumentation where I'm not allowed to drop a requirement and go along with the proposed worldview?
I agreed pages ago that we cannot give an ultimate "why" answer to physical processes. But we can give very low-level descriptions of how things work that are stunningly accurate. All I'm asking for is a hand-waving description of how an indeterministic decision is made.
We are at the point here where more words are being spent pigeonholing me than are being spent trying to answer my question.
~~ Paul
As said in my last post, nobody knows what you're looking for. And any discussion keeps coming back to this random/deterministic dichotomy.
And since your belief that free will is incoherent is because you don't think even non-conscious matter can move in a way that's non-random and non-deterministic it makes more sense to focus on that.
It's not about pigeon-holing you, it's about focusing on the piece of the conversation that won't result in a rehash of all the previous threads on this subject.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(2020-11-10, 01:08 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: As said in my last post, nobody knows what you're looking for. And any discussion keeps coming back to this random/deterministic dichotomy.
And since your belief that free will is incoherent is because you don't think even non-conscious matter can move in a way that's non-random and non-deterministic it makes more sense to focus on that.
It's not about pigeon-holing you, it's about focusing on the piece of the conversation that won't result in a rehash of all the previous threads on this subject.
May I summarize the conversation so far.
Sciborg: The world is not limited to determinism and randomness. If you give up on that, an explanation is possible.
Me: Okay, I give up on that.
Sciborg: No, you can't do that because you think free will is incoherent.
Is there any chance you will let me give up on the dichotomy? That includes not rejecting future descriptions just because they aren't dichotomous.
~~ Paul
If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi
(This post was last modified: 2020-11-10, 01:14 AM by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos.)
|